A Combined Scoring System of Palliative Prognostic Index and Laboratory Prognostic Score

PurposeWe hypothesized that combining the Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI; maximum score: 15) with the Laboratory Prognostic Score (LPS; maximum score: 10), which is based on blood test parameters, would yield superior prognostic accuracy compared with each score alone. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic performance of the combined PPI-LPS score and compare it with that of PPI, LPS, and the Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP).MethodsThe PPI-LPS score was calculated as the arithmetic mean of scaled PPI and LPS values: Round[((PPI/1.5) + LPS)/2]. A total of 1061 terminally ill patients with cancer admitted to an acute care hospital with a palliative care unit were included. Prognostic performance was compared among PPI, LPS, PaP, and PPI-LPS in terms of (1) discrimination of 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality; (2) accuracy of median survival prediction; and (3) categorical survival classification as "days" (0-13 days), "weeks" (14-55 days), or "months" (>55 days).ResultsThe PPI-LPS score demonstrated the highest discriminative ability for 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality (accuracy: 74%, 80%, and 80%, respectively). It also achieved superior accuracy in predicting median survival (34%) and categorical survival classification (agreement: 61%) compared with PPI, LPS, and PaP.ConclusionThe combined PPI-LPS score provides better prognostic performance than PPI, LPS, or PaP in terminally ill patients with cancer, offering a simple and clinically useful tool for survival estimation in palliative care settings.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®
Published
2025-11-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091251398009
Primary Topic
Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Combined Scoring System of Palliative Prognostic Index and Laboratory Prognostic Score

Natsuko Kawai, Norihiro Yuasa, Junichi Takamizawa
American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®
Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
article

A Combined Scoring System of Palliative Prognostic Index and Laboratory Prognostic Score

Natsuko Kawai, Norihiro Yuasa, Junichi Takamizawa
article en

Abstract

PurposeWe hypothesized that combining the Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI; maximum score: 15) with the Laboratory Prognostic Score (LPS; maximum score: 10), which is based on blood test parameters, would yield superior prognostic accuracy compared with each score alone. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic performance of the combined PPI-LPS score and compare it with that of PPI, LPS, and the Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP).MethodsThe PPI-LPS score was calculated as the arithmetic mean of scaled PPI and LPS values: Round[((PPI/1.5) + LPS)/2]. A total of 1061 terminally ill patients with cancer admitted to an acute care hospital with a palliative care unit were included. Prognostic performance was compared among PPI, LPS, PaP, and PPI-LPS in terms of (1) discrimination of 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality; (2) accuracy of median survival prediction; and (3) categorical survival classification as "days" (0-13 days), "weeks" (14-55 days), or "months" (>55 days).ResultsThe PPI-LPS score demonstrated the highest discriminative ability for 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality (accuracy: 74%, 80%, and 80%, respectively). It also achieved superior accuracy in predicting median survival (34%) and categorical survival classification (agreement: 61%) compared with PPI, LPS, and PaP.ConclusionThe combined PPI-LPS score provides better prognostic performance than PPI, LPS, or PaP in terminally ill patients with cancer, offering a simple and clinically useful tool for survival estimation in palliative care settings.

American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®
Japanese Red Cross Nagoya Daiichi Hospital (JP)
Openalex Percentile: Top 55%
Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.